A good point. I think Jack’s practical legal point is a good one as well. My real question is this: What is the main problem you see with gay marriage? It can’t be only the slippery slope to polygamy, because we have polygamy-specific criticisms that, because they don’t apply to gay marriage, logically separate the two.
[/quote]
I don’t object…unless…you object that polygamy can’t/won’t/shouldn’t happen.
But the slippery slope isn’t just a channel to polygamy and there and then it all ends. As I mentioned it degrades an institution that has stood the test of time for millennia and across virtually all cultures. It is radical. And the radical almost always portends unintended consequences of which some are certain to be negative – and the horse ain’t going back in the barn.
But polygamy is not all that radical. But again, it’s not going to end with John and Tina and Beverly sittin’ in a tree…
[/quote]
I have a healthy respect for being wary of unintended consequences. So that point does resonate with me.
A good point. I think Jack’s practical legal point is a good one as well. My real question is this: What is the main problem you see with gay marriage? It can’t be only the slippery slope to polygamy, because we have polygamy-specific criticisms that, because they don’t apply to gay marriage, logically separate the two.
[/quote]
I don’t object…unless…you object that polygamy can’t/won’t/shouldn’t happen.[/quote]
I simply don’t know enough about the practical stuff – and haven’t thought enough about polygamy in general – to have an opinion. If it becomes a serious issue, I’m sure I will formulate one.
[quote]
As I mentioned it degrades an institution that has stood the test of time for millennia and across virtually all cultures.[/quote]
I don’t know exactly what “degrades” means here. If an alteration to the legal definition of marriage (with the result that people who previously couldn’t get wedded suddenly can) is by definition degradation, then it is in fact the case that in a place in which interracial marriage has just been allowed, the institution has been degraded. I doubt any of us would actually say, or believe, such a thing to be the case. The point being that if “degradation” is going to actually mean anything, it must include the “social harm” element that is thus far missing from anti-gay-marriage reasoning.
More importantly, if by “stood the test of time” you mean “proven to be beneficial to society,” then perhaps the sudden legality of gay marriage simply amplifies a social benefit. Maybe there are fewer kids awaiting adoption, fewer cases of HIV, and more family units optimal for financial stability in twenty years (each of these, by the way, is a money issue as well as a feel-good one). This would be nice, and at what cost would it have come?
What is there beyond that? Bestiality? That has been suggested, but it can be rejected pretty mechanically: no consent, no marriage. Non-consensual marital relationships are socially harmful in the same way that rape and arson are socially harmful.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
it is perfectly valid for a person to – as I do – support gay marriage while also supporting the right of a Christian (or whatever) baker to refuse to bake a cake for a wedding between two men or two women.[/quote]
Where do you draw the line in refusing service to members of the public? How about if I don’t like Jews and don’t want to bake a cake for a bar mitzvah? Or a cake to celebrate Ramadam? How about if a newly married gay couple wants to honeymoon at a cozy resort? Can you refuse to allow them because you don’t agree with gay marriage and don’t want to be part of the extended celebration? What about if a single woman is having a baby. Do you turn her away from your hospital because your religion sees premarital sex as a sin?
[/quote]
These are valid questions.
In addressing these if we err, should we err on the side of liberty or repression?[/quote]
That’s a catch 22. Liberty for whom? Liberty for the business owner, who wants to pick and choose who he services? Or liberty for the engaged gay couple, who wants to pick and choose to shop at any establishment a straight couple can?
I took Deb’s picture to mean that people in a moment cannot see outside of themselves.
[/quote]
Sounds like a euphemism for “I simply can’t tolerate folks who don’t think like me.”[/quote]
Why am I not surprised it sounds like that to you?
Have you never been there yourself? Caught up in a movement out of fear or lack of education that you later changed your position on? I certainly have. As one ages and has more life experience, perspective often changes. The bulk of those people in that picture, if any are still alive, probably don’t still hold the same beliefs about racial mixing. Or at least not with the same fervor and fear.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
it is perfectly valid for a person to – as I do – support gay marriage while also supporting the right of a Christian (or whatever) baker to refuse to bake a cake for a wedding between two men or two women.[/quote]
Where do you draw the line in refusing service to members of the public? How about if I don’t like Jews and don’t want to bake a cake for a bar mitzvah? Or a cake to celebrate Ramadam? How about if a newly married gay couple wants to honeymoon at a cozy resort? Can you refuse to allow them because you don’t agree with gay marriage and don’t want to be part of the extended celebration? What about if a single woman is having a baby. Do you turn her away from your hospital because your religion sees premarital sex as a sin?
[/quote]
These are valid questions.
In addressing these if we err, should we err on the side of liberty or repression?[/quote]
That’s a catch 22. Liberty for whom? Liberty for the business owner, who wants to pick and choose who he services? Or liberty for the engaged gay couple, who wants to pick and choose to shop at any establishment a straight couple can.[/quote]
The difference is the gay couple can just as easily use a different business. They aren’t being forced to use Bakery X, Y, or Z by the government.
A small business on the other hand is being forced to serve anyone / everyone regardless of their personal religious belief and if they don’t they will be punished.
If a neo nazi wants a swastika cake that reads “Happy 100th anniversary of the Holocaust” should a Jewish bakery be forced to bake it?
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
it is perfectly valid for a person to – as I do – support gay marriage while also supporting the right of a Christian (or whatever) baker to refuse to bake a cake for a wedding between two men or two women.[/quote]
Where do you draw the line in refusing service to members of the public? How about if I don’t like Jews and don’t want to bake a cake for a bar mitzvah? Or a cake to celebrate Ramadam? How about if a newly married gay couple wants to honeymoon at a cozy resort? Can you refuse to allow them because you don’t agree with gay marriage and don’t want to be part of the extended celebration? What about if a single woman is having a baby. Do you turn her away from your hospital because your religion sees premarital sex as a sin?
[/quote]
These are valid questions.
In addressing these if we err, should we err on the side of liberty or repression?[/quote]
That’s a catch 22. Liberty for whom? Liberty for the business owner, who wants to pick and choose who he services? Or liberty for the engaged gay couple, who wants to pick and choose to shop at any establishment a straight couple can.[/quote]
The difference is the gay couple can just as easily use a different business. They aren’t being forced to use Bakery X, Y, or Z by the government.
[/quote]
Just like blacks could just as easily use a different drinking fountain.
But I see your point.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
If a neo nazi wants a swastika cake that reads “Happy 100th anniversary of the Holocaust” should a Jewish bakery be forced to bake it?
[/quote]
Very valid question.
If a neo nazi wants a swastika cake that reads “Happy 100th anniversary of the Holocaust” should a Jewish bakery be forced to bake it?
[/quote]
Very valid question.
[/quote]
I imagine a jewish bakery would refuse to sell that cake to ANYONE, not just neo-nazis. I don’t find that behavior discriminatory.
However, if those same neo-nazis came in and just wanted a regular cake and the bakery refuse to sell it to them BECAUSE they are neo-nazis, I would definitely say that’s discriminatory.
A lot of these “what if” scenarios are irrelevant, because you can’t force a business to provide a good or service that they don’t sell or provide on a regular basis.
So the question becomes one of when does a business have the right to refuse service or what does it mean to discriminate against someone? If discrimination is merely the denial of equal treatment based on group membership, then it’s not inherently illegal, so long as the denial of service isn’t based on the customer’s race, color, religion, national origin or disability. Some states or municipalities also forbid discrimination against people because of their sexual orientation, but if there is no state, federal or local law prohibiting discrimination in public accommodations against a particular group of people or protected class of persons, then you can legally refuse to serve that group of people or protected class of persons. Hence, a lot of these “what if” examples depict legal discrimination, because the refusal of service isn’t directed or reflective of the customer being a member of a protected class.
If a neo nazi wants a swastika cake that reads “Happy 100th anniversary of the Holocaust” should a Jewish bakery be forced to bake it?
[/quote]
Very valid question.
[/quote]
I imagine a jewish bakery would refuse to sell that cake to ANYONE, not just neo-nazis. I don’t find that behavior discriminatory.
However, if those same neo-nazis came in and just wanted a regular cake and the bakery refuse to sell it to them BECAUSE they are neo-nazis, I would definitely say that’s discriminatory.
[/quote]
If a Jewish baker provides cake decorating services, what gives that baker the right to deny anyone a Holocaust cake? That’s the road we’re going down.
Sure, it’s discriminatory. We discriminate all the time and don’t bat an eyelid. We don’t let women sell their bodies for example, is that okay? We don’t let 20 year olds buy alcohol, is that okay? We let business’ turn away customers not wearing a shirt or shoes, is that okay? Personal financial planners turn people away if they don’t have a certain amount of assets, is that okay?
[quote]JR249 wrote:
A lot of these “what if” scenarios are irrelevant, because you can’t force a business to provide a good or service that they don’t sell or provide on a regular basis.
So the question becomes one of when does a business have the right to refuse service or what does it mean to discriminate against someone? If discrimination is merely the denial of equal treatment based on group membership, then it’s not inherently illegal, so long as the denial of service isn’t based on the customer’s race, color, religion, national origin or disability. Some states or municipalities also forbid discrimination against people because of their sexual orientation, but if there is no state, federal or local law prohibiting discrimination in public accommodations against a particular group of people or protected class of persons, then you can legally refuse to serve that group of people or protected class of persons. Hence, a lot of these “what if” examples depict legal discrimination, because the refusal of service isn’t directed or reflective of the customer being a member of a protected class.[/quote]
Yes, but there are two separate questions: what is allowed under the various relevant laws as they exist, and what ought to be allowed. I think that most people are here concerned with the latter.
Edit: though you and Jack always have fascinating things to say about the former.
…I support heterosexual married couples having children as long as they have the financial means to do so; otherwise it is an irresponsible choice that is unlikely to work out well for the couple.
[/quote]
So what? All that matters is if they love each other. Ask Justice Kennedy. Just who do you think you are, determining what’s best for the lowly peasant class, Neph? You’re going to deny a “fundamental right” because of the lack of money? Where do you get off reserving 14th Amendment rights just for those who can afford it?
[/quote]
Saying something is an irresponsible choice doesn’t mean that it should be illegal.
I don’t sound like those people at all, because I’m not trying to legislate this particular belief. You haven’t shown an inconsistency yet, push. We can go down the rabbit hole of radical skepticism if you like, but all that would do is show that we have equally weak positions insofar as neither of us has a claim to absolute truth.
For the record, I approve the result (gay marriage being legal), but I do not approve of how that particular sausage was made.
And if a parent CONSENTS to such a relationship for their child?[/quote]
I would imagine the parent gets arrested for child abuse.[/quote]
Yes, now. Now.[/quote]
Not so long ago, parents could agree to marry off their very young daughters to much, much older men. In fact, girls as young as 13 can be married off in New Hampshire upon a showing of “special cause.” So, what? Moral progress and decline?
If a neo nazi wants a swastika cake that reads “Happy 100th anniversary of the Holocaust” should a Jewish bakery be forced to bake it?
[/quote]
Very valid question.
[/quote]
I imagine a jewish bakery would refuse to sell that cake to ANYONE, not just neo-nazis. I don’t find that behavior discriminatory.
However, if those same neo-nazis came in and just wanted a regular cake and the bakery refuse to sell it to them BECAUSE they are neo-nazis, I would definitely say that’s discriminatory.
[/quote]
If a Jewish baker provides cake decorating services, what gives that baker the right to deny anyone a Holocaust cake? That’s the road we’re going down.
Sure, it’s discriminatory. We discriminate all the time and don’t bat an eyelid. We don’t let women sell their bodies for example, is that okay? We don’t let 20 year olds buy alcohol, is that okay? We let business’ turn away customers not wearing a shirt or shoes, is that okay? Personal financial planners turn people away if they don’t have a certain amount of assets, is that okay?
There are a lot of examples. [/quote]
I feel like, as long as they refuse to sell all people that cake, it is equal. If they only refused to sell it to one group, that would be discrimination.
I imagine a jewish bakery would refuse to sell that cake to ANYONE, not just neo-nazis. I don’t find that behavior discriminatory.
[/quote]
My anti-aircraft guns can easily knock that Messerschmitt out of the sky by saying a Christian baker would refuse to sell a cake celebrating gay marriage to ANYONE, not just a gay couple.
[/quote]
I’m ok with that example. I think it demonstrates the point I’m talking about. However, if that same bakery refused to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple on the basis that they are gay, then it might be an issue.
I’m not interested in the debate (I actually avoid this forum, and was only posting on this thread while it was in GAL). I just felt the analogy didn’t serve it’s own goal.